Big Content: stopping P2P should be “principal focus” of IP czar

The new "IP czar" in the White House has just gotten an earful on how to do …

Thanks to the recent PRO-IP Act, the US has for the first time has an "Intellectual Property Enforcement Coordinator" responsible for pulling together all the resources of the federal government. What should the IPEC be doing with her time and resources? The "core content industries" have an answer: she should turn the online world from a "thieves' bazaar to a safe and well-lit marketplace" by encouraging network admins to deploy bandwidth shaping, site blocking, traffic filters, watermark detectors, and deep packet inspection.

According to the RIAA, MPAA, Directors Guild, Screen Actors Guild, and others, new IPEC Victoria Espinel should embark on nothing less than a quest to "push back the tide of copyright theft." But as anyone who has tried to hold back the tide can tell you, it's a tough job. Just ask Venice.

The groups talk a good game about "voluntary" network initiatives and "encouragement" of network admins and hosting providers. But they also demand a 120-day review to identify "any legislative, regulatory, or policy change needed to move more effectively against this menace to our economy, society, and culture."

Stopping the tide

The joint submission came yesterday, the last day to file comments with Espinel's office regarding the approach her work should take. As is Washington practice, everyone filed at the last moment to deny others from seeing (and responding to) their arguments.

The filing of the "creative community organizations" is surprising in that it really has a single focus: "online copyright theft." There's little apparent concern for anything else, showing just how seriously these industries take the problem of online infringement.

The language varies wildly between the apocalyptic ("menace to our economy, society, and culture") and the melodramatic ("The motion pictures, television programs, and music that our industries create are a representation to the world of our freedoms, our culture, and our diversity. They are woven into the fabric of our culture and are part of our national heritage. Generations of craftspeople, film and recording artists, and creators have learned from and build on the creativity of generations before them—and they have built industries that are like no others in the world.")

These are no doubt superb products of the researchers' art, but we were surprised to see so few studies mentioned (the MPAA's own commissioned and widely-touted study on college P2P downloading was notable by its absence, though for obvious reasons). Each industry gets one paragraph touting the horrors—$6.1 billion lost by the MPAA companies in 2005, $2.7 billion lost by the RIAA companies—and then it's on to what clearly matters: what to do about the problem.

Rightsholders have failed to convince most of the online players to participate in protecting their content in the ways they would like. The filing goes after everyone from hosting providers to search engines to ad networks to payment processors to domain name registrars, complaining that nearly all "turn a blind eye, or at best react passively and selectively to the problem" of online infringement.

It calls on Espinel to lean on such companies so that they "work with content owners on a voluntary basis." Nothing wrong with that—sites like YouTube are productively doing this sort of thing now, offering rightsholders pretty reasonable tools for blocking mass infringement of their works. (Rightsholders are also pressuring the FCC to push "voluntary cooperation" on the industry.)

One problem comes because the Digital Millennium Copyright Act make it sound as though Internet companies could become liable for infringement as soon as they begin proactively screening their content. This obviously discourages participation with rightsholders, and the filing suggests that the government clarify that such cooperation will not jeopardize safe harbor status.

Rightsholders also want the government to make sure that Internet companies really do terminate "repeat infringers," as required by the DMCA (which says nothing about how or when to do this).

But "voluntary" only goes so far, as shown by the basic failure of the RIAA's "graduated response" push in the US, and so rightsholders also want every federal agency dealing with IP to look at changing the law. Every agency should also come up with a list of proposed legislative, regulatory, and policy changes that would make it easier to crack down on online infringement.

Sharper solutions

Not surprisingly, the joint filing of consumer interest groups like the Electronic Frontier Foundation and Public Knowledge suggest a different approach. Trashing the "blunter solutions often recommended by the entertainment industry," these groups suggest that Espinel "might wish to consider whether facilitating legal access to content through mechanical licensing at reasonable rates would prove a better way to discourage infringement and benefit the industry as a whole."

Does this actually fall within the purview of IPEC? Probably not, but such groups have long pushed for various blanket licensing schemes (voluntary or otherwise) that might harness and monetize things like P2P rather than go to war against it. The details of any such plan are complicated, but the copyright industries are not wholly opposed; see for example initiatives like Choruss, which is trying to bring voluntary blanket music licensing to college campuses.

In any event, the consumer groups have one key argument to make: "stronger" enforcement is not always "better" enforcement. A canonical example was the Sony BMG "rootkit" debacle of 2005, in which the music company tried to apply DRM to conventional CDs and created a legal and security nightmare for itself.

The filing suggests that instead of a "more is better" approach, Espinel use her coordinating role to focus on cost/benefit analyses of different enforcement types. The goal should be to focus on "violations likely to cause the greatest harm." Noting that copyright holders generally must police infringement privately, the filing encourages caution before spending too many public resources to protect private rights.

67 Reader Comments

According to the RIAA, MPAA, Directors Guild, Screen Actors Guild, and others,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,

These are the assholes that I am boycotting by not buying any NEW PRODUCTS from any of the greedy companies whop would love to take away our rights.Why support the greedy industry ? Others won't and then they will sell their stuff used and that is when you should be buying your corporate krud..........BUY USED !!!

With issues like patent reform, legislation to help combat patent trolls, improvements to the patent litigation system (making it faster, smoother, and more predictable), improving access to patent information, improving patent submission and review, and I have not even started about the parallels in the trademark and other systems, and these money grubbing bastards are concerned with PIRACY (which could be easily handled by embracing technology, soft watermarks, and changing their business model, without any government intervention)?

There are things said to the faces of people like that. Usually just before a bullet is put in their head and their dropped into a pre-made grave in a corn field (at least, thats how it plays out in the movie in my head).

"might wish to consider whether facilitating legal access to content through mechanical licensing at reasonable rates would prove a better way to discourage infringement and benefit the industry as a whole."

Or... maybe government could stop being a tool of private interests and remember who it really serves - the electorate? And leave industry to figure out for itself how best to do business?

"might wish to consider whether facilitating legal access to content through mechanical licensing at reasonable rates would prove a better way to discourage infringement and benefit the industry as a whole."

Or... maybe government could stop being a tool of private interests and remember who it really serves - the electorate? And leave industry to figure out for itself how best to do business?

Exactly. The government really should limit its role and tell these companies and industry groups to DIAF and figure it out themselves. It seems to me that many of the ones who do do pretty well, but I suppose if one is clinging to an outdated business model, and overvaluing the 'work' then market forces are quite a bane. It's still not the governments job to protect them though.

Everytime i read "push back the tide of copyright theft" I get this mental image of an army of people, all armed with teacups, on the beach waiting for the tide to come in.

Some even forming a kind of "teacup brigade" to be more organized and/or efficient.

And just behind this army armed with teacups there are the RIAA and MPAA standing on a sand castle along with clueless politicians screaming: "Yes, we are winning, keep it up boys, all this needs is brute force and a set mind" while having a sick feeling in the pits of their stomach wondering why it i'snt working.

I have one word for the entertainment industry: STFU. The principle focus of the IP Czar should be to make sure that other countries are not stealing American innovations. Seriously. Who gives a fuck about the entertainment industry? They are a bunch of whiny, cry babies who (like the cable companies, etc) want the government to prop up an obsolete business model. Ridiculous.

A "menace to our economy, society, and culture"? I give them credit for keeping a straight face when they write this bullshit. They mean a menace to our sharholders' bank accounts. Since when have they ever cared about the economy, society, and culture? It must take serious balls to be a lobbyist. I can't believe they expect anyone to take them seriously when they are nothing but liars and everyone knows it.

This kind of arrogance can only come from getting their way so often. I guess given the amount of money they have to play with and the stupidity of most politicians they have a right to expect to get their way. Or maybe it's the arrogance of the politicians who think that if the lobbyists write them sufficiently rosy prose and the American people are stupid enough to believe that they will have sufficient political cover to sell out the country? If so, the lobbyists will need to get a lot better because we see that the Emperor has no clothes. Fuckers.

What should the IPEC be doing with her time and resources? The "core content industries" have an answer: she should turn the online world from a "thieves' bazaar to a safe and well-lit marketplace" by encouraging network admins to deploy bandwidth shaping, site blocking, traffic filters, watermark detectors, and deep packet inspection.

So basically, the "core content industries" want the bandwidth providers to shoulder the expense of protecting their content. Of all of the rhetoric that the "core content industries" spew, here we have the biggest turd, and the biggest reason that nothing is done about this "problem." Because they want someone else to pay for protecting their own content. Because "bandwidth shaping, site blocking, traffic filters, watermark detectors, and deep packet inspection" are all expensive technologies to implement; and the IT security personnel who support and understand these technologies are even more expensive to employ.

"Core content industries" are not interested in developing better distribution channels to their consumers, or even developing better technologies to protect their own IP. They want someone ELSE to be responsible for doing that, without investing any of their own money into doing so.

It makes me really love supporting the entertainment industry as they bribe the government into persecuting 16 year olds downloading Flo Rida songs when data shows that even in this recession they are posting record profits.

Thankfully, movies and music today in the US are so damn terrible that I'm not giving them much of my money anyway. As for my international entertainment tastes, I'm sure they are no better, but I'd sooner give my money to them than the most greedy industry on the planet.

The one thing Ms. Espinel should NOT do is listen to big content, the lables, the RIAA, the MPAA, and any of the other self interest profit groups, on this matter. That its the worst thing she could possibly do. If she does listen to them she is doomed to failure because basing a strategy and method upon false information and lies does nothing but undermine efforts.

I have one word for the entertainment industry: STFU. The principle focus of the IP Czar should be to make sure that other countries are not stealing American innovations. Seriously. Who gives a fuck about the entertainment industry? They are a bunch of whiny, cry babies who (like the cable companies, etc) want the government to prop up an obsolete business model. Ridiculous.

basically, make sure noone do to USA what USA did to europe after USA gained its independence?

"Core content industries" are not interested in developing better distribution channels to their consumers, or even developing better technologies to protect their own IP. They want someone ELSE to be responsible for doing that, without investing any of their own money into doing so.

Why don't they create their own Internet 3.0, with their own isolated network, full of DRM and pay-walls, accessible only to "trusted" devices (aka devices that consider their user as untrusted) like iPads, consoles and proprietary set-top-boxes ?

Then, let the consumer decide if he prefer the bazaar full of riffraffs, or the sterile well-lit marketplace where he can be nickel-and-dimed to death by talentless corporate execs who have taken our culture hostage.

I have one word for the entertainment industry: STFU. The principle focus of the IP Czar should be to make sure that other countries are not stealing American innovations. Seriously. Who gives a fuck about the entertainment industry? They are a bunch of whiny, cry babies who (like the cable companies, etc) want the government to prop up an obsolete business model. Ridiculous.

basically, make sure noone do to USA what USA did to europe after USA gained its independence?

You mean steal innovations? Damn straight. Innovation is far more difficult and resource intensive now than it was then. If people want to call us hypocrites for something our ancestors did 300 years ago in a different time and a different culture. Fine. Do it. But it seems like a fairly thin justification for stealing ideas. I hope it makes you feel better. But, frankly, I am laughing at your indignation.

1. Ensure 5 leg desk chair is close by. (Safety is paramount and for the children!!!)2. Take left hand and clench into fist with thumb facing upwards.3. Place body so that left hand is planted firmly on chair4. Place right hand in front of eyes.5. Sit on chair6. Spin chair to hearts content because this is how affective you will be attempting to combat recreational copyright abuse over p2p networks.

Or she can tell industry to get shoved and tell them to get with it and give the customer what they want, when they want, and how they want, otherwise the customer will get it however they want anyway. This may not be in her pervue, however she should also begin to see about reforming copyright, trademark and patent laws.

I think what they meant was:"The motion pictures, television programs, and music that our industries create are a representation to the world of our industry's freedoms, our industry's culture, and our industry's diversity." Can't let the public freely share, build upon and improve our culture and heritage now can we, the content industry would go bankrupt overnight!

I am of the opinion that it was these corporate industries that pushed the government to extend the length of Copyright terms to obscene lengths so it should be on the shoulders of these corporate industries to ensure that they earn income from those copyrights for the length of those terms. The copyrights are not held by the Government so the government should not be responsible for making sure they are making the owners money.

I find it amusing that, when posters pointed out that Ars has a pointedly negative editorial stance against content companies, they responed with "oh, no, we're just against limiting consumer freedom and their litigation strategies."

And then they make sure to always refer to them as the ominous "Big Content", and whip out article graphics like the crazy evil dude to represent them.

I have one word for the entertainment industry: STFU. The principle focus of the IP Czar should be to make sure that other countries are not stealing American innovations. Seriously. Who gives a fuck about the entertainment industry? They are a bunch of whiny, cry babies who (like the cable companies, etc) want the government to prop up an obsolete business model. Ridiculous.

basically, make sure noone do to USA what USA did to europe after USA gained its independence?

You mean steal innovations? Damn straight. Innovation is far more difficult and resource intensive now than it was then.

Which presumably means that it's more difficult to steal too, since you need all those same resources to make the product, whether you stole the innovation or not.

Quote:

If people want to call us hypocrites for something our ancestors did 300 years ago in a different time and a different culture. Fine. Do it. But it seems like a fairly thin justification for stealing ideas. I hope it makes you feel better. But, frankly, I am laughing at your indignation.

Blatantly self-serving hypocrisy is a bad basis for law-making. It's an even worse basis for international law or treaties. It is, IMO, a significant factor in creating the 'problem' of online piracy in the first place.

I find it amusing that, when posters pointed out that Ars has a pointedly negative editorial stance against content companies, they responed with "oh, no, we're just against limiting consumer freedom and their litigation strategies."

And then they make sure to always refer to them as the ominous "Big Content", and whip out article graphics like the crazy evil dude to represent them.

Righto... Nothing against content companies. Totally unbiased.

Would this be the same Ars that recently whined about people "stealing" their content by using adblocking, because you know content is not free. This being the same Ars that then repeatedly has defended or excused away pirating.

Well sorry, hate to say it but I now specifically use adblocking just for your site alone. Morons.

Would this be the same Ars that recently whined about people "stealing" their content by using adblocking, because you know content is not free. This being the same Ars that then repeatedly has defended or excused away pirating.

Well sorry, hate to say it but I now specifically use adblocking just for your site alone. Morons.

You are comparing apples to oranges. You may start whining when Ars starts suing their readers or urgings law-enforcement to harass them.

I hate the term "content holders" almost as bad as the Orwellian "consumer" designation of regular citizens.

These fucks don't create content. They make a living from stealing it from others, and locking it up forever to "monetize" it by adding nothing of value.

You know where the real ideas and culture come from? The independent underground. The supposed copyright violators who mix, rip, and remix existing material...kinda like Disney's business model of the last 80 years.

I didn't ask to be inundated with your bullshit "content" on billboards while I drive down the interstate, or any time I turn on the radio, television, or open a magazine or newspaper. The citizens have every right in the world to take what is theirs and manipulate it as they please. As soon as it violates my senses, it's as much mine as it is yours.

I resent the very idea of my tax dollars being used to keep failing businesses afloat. The way to stop the madness is to even further boycott the music and movie industry until it can no longer even afford itself.

I hate the term "content holders" almost as bad as the Orwellian "consumer" designation of regular citizens.

These fucks don't create content. They make a living from stealing it from others, and locking it up forever to "monetize" it by adding nothing of value.

So, you might say that they 'hold' onto 'content' as a business model? I think that large content-holding corporations (and even individuals who are in the business of holding, and making money off of, copyrights) are usefully distinguished from those who create content, and that members of the RIAA and MPAA are reasonably accurately described as content holders.

I hate the term "content holders" almost as bad as the Orwellian "consumer" designation of regular citizens.

These fucks don't create content. They make a living from stealing it from others, and locking it up forever to "monetize" it by adding nothing of value.

You know where the real ideas and culture come from? The independent underground. The supposed copyright violators who mix, rip, and remix existing material...kinda like Disney's business model of the last 80 years.

I didn't ask to be inundated with your bullshit "content" on billboards while I drive down the interstate, or any time I turn on the radio, television, or open a magazine or newspaper. The citizens have every right in the world to take what is theirs and manipulate it as they please. As soon as it violates my senses, it's as much mine as it is yours.

Wow, I must say you really brought the narcissistic entitlement communist rage on that one. +1

Can't these industries use all their profits to find a way to stop the "Pirates"... no they have to go to "mommy" A.K.A. United States Government and ask for help for an industry that has not stopped making profits since it first started out in the business. This on top of the news that movie tickets are going up in price today is making me want to boycott the industry and get everyone I know on the same boat.

Or... maybe government could stop being a tool of private interests and remember who it really serves - the electorate? And leave industry to figure out for itself how best to do business?

Of course, this assumes that there actually is such a thing as Public Duty or a Public Good. The tenets of game theory (Nash, et al) indicating that all people are suspicious of each other and operate only in their own self interest almost conclusively precludes the possibility of an altruistic political entity.

In the end, the politicians are working selfishly for themselves (the motivations are varied, money, power, historical recognition, etc), as are the industry groups (money only). The fact of the matter is that the people are the only ones with no power or effective lobby in this equation. The result is obvious.

Sadly, true capitalism offers more freedom for the individual than the limited form of democracy now being practiced. Voting is merely a placebo which allows us our choice of evils.

The only ray of light in all this is that capitalism still has more power to shape our society than government does. Market forces dictate pricing, etc. If most people are unwilling to pay for something, it essentially reduces the value of that item to zero. They can rally against it in the short term, but in the end, the government has finite resources with which to fight broad techno-sociological change -- which is what P2P is. By wasting their resources fighting the inevitable, the media industries are only hastening their own demise. Adapting to the new reality of the marketplace would be a more logical long-term approach.

I hate the term "content holders" almost as bad as the Orwellian "consumer" designation of regular citizens.

These fucks don't create content. They make a living from stealing it from others, and locking it up forever to "monetize" it by adding nothing of value.

You know where the real ideas and culture come from? The independent underground. The supposed copyright violators who mix, rip, and remix existing material...kinda like Disney's business model of the last 80 years.

I didn't ask to be inundated with your bullshit "content" on billboards while I drive down the interstate, or any time I turn on the radio, television, or open a magazine or newspaper. The citizens have every right in the world to take what is theirs and manipulate it as they please. As soon as it violates my senses, it's as much mine as it is yours.

Wow, I must say you really brought the narcissistic entitlement communist rage on that one. +1

Except for the part where he's right? The RIAA and MPAA are not really music and movie associations for everyone in the business, they serve the large institutions that mostly exploit the underlings actually doing the creative work. Also, I don't really see any entitlement there, just hate for the institutions.

On a side note, I like how big content still acts like P2P is a thing and it can be stopped. Haven't we learned anything yet? P2P is not any one single technology, but rather a concept of sharing information directly from person to person. Stopping P2P is like stopping an idea, it just is and there is nothing to do about it save for shutting down the internet entirely (good luck with that). Oh and if you do that, people will just revert to recording radio again.

Everytime i read "push back the tide of copyright theft" I get this mental image of an army of people, all armed with teacups, on the beach waiting for the tide to come in.

Some even forming a kind of "teacup brigade" to be more organized and/or efficient.

And just behind this army armed with teacups there are the RIAA and MPAA standing on a sand castle along with clueless politicians screaming: "Yes, we are winning, keep it up boys, all this needs is brute force and a set mind" while having a sick feeling in the pits of their stomach wondering why it i'snt working.

That is an awesome image. Someone really needs to draw this up political cartoon style.

"might wish to consider whether facilitating legal access to content through mechanical licensing at reasonable rates would prove a better way to discourage infringement and benefit the industry as a whole."

Or... maybe government could stop being a tool of private interests and remember who it really serves - the electorate? And leave industry to figure out for itself how best to do business?

The electorate doesn't contribute millions to re-election campaigns, nor does it contribute millions to political slush funds, nor does it provide elected officials with free trips to exotic places. Without the contributions from the content industries, where would politicians get their perks and stay in office? The content industries pay good money for the votes of the elected officials and they fully expect a good return on their investment.